????????

Coffee and This Chick

Phelps has the best coffee rant ever on his blog. That reminds me I haven’t blogged about coffee in a while. Things have been going pretty good over here since I chased away the coffee slacker(s).

Mornings are great, bleary eyed recovering from pool shooting and drinking, tossing down cup after cup of Starbucks until my hearts is palpitating. When I start shaking I know I’ve got just the right amount. Then I’m bleary eyed and jittery. I love being me.

The other night I quasi got with this nice chick from Leroy’s. I say quasi because we never got out of the car and into the house but we sort of. . . hoo. Anyway she’s nice. And she’s not like the girls I usually try to get with. She can actually put sentences together and stuff. I’m like wow. The fact that she’s pretty is almost beside the point.

Beer is good because if a chick drinks enough of it I sometimes become desirable. And this chick was pretty buzzed. I only wish she would have spent the night so I could wake up next to her in the morning and laugh at her and say ‘Haha! You got with me!’ That would have been great!

I’m gonna write a letter to Budweiser. They might even use it in an ad! Thank you Bud!

Categorized under: Uncategorized.
Tagged with: no tags.

22 Responses to “Coffee and This Chick”

I’m going to write up a legendary post regarding my thoughts about starbucks 2004 holiday marketing campaign….it’ll be a must read and you might want to include a line or two from it in yer christmas cards this year.

It’s actually very canny when you realize that I read his blog and that’s what gave me the idea to blog about coffee. Sometimes when I can’t think of an idea I steal other peoples. Kind of like when I raided my grandma’s cancer fund for beer and pool money. That brought a smile even to her face. Or at least I think it was a smile. I couldn’t really see behind the duct tape.

>Whether or not you believe me isn’t going to
>break me one way or the other. But for what it’s
>worth I stand by my statement.

So you’ve fucked up three marriages yourself… and you’re happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens the right to marry their partners? You’re also happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens any of the legal protections associated with marriage — like the “right” to visit one’s partner in hospital. And why?? You can’t articlulate s single coherent or sensible reason. I think what it boils down to is that behind the clown act, you are ‘just’ a very small, mean-spirited person. No doubt that contributed to your marital failure(s).

So you’ve fucked up three marriages yourself… and you’re happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens the right to marry their partners?

No, I didn’t fuck them up by myself. I had a spouse to help me fuck it up. So haha, at least I had a spouse for a while. You’ll probably never have one.

You’re also happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens any of the legal protections associated with marriage — like the “right” to visit one’s partner in hospital. And why?? You can’t articlulate s single coherent or sensible reason.

Yes I did. Rules of the game is that touchdowns are on this side of the field. You wanna take the ball to the other side and want to know why the ref doesn’t raise his arms. Then you want to change the rules of the game. That’s sad.

I think what it boils down to is that behind the clown act, you are ‘just’ a very small, mean-spirited person.

Oh no! Not mean-spirited! I thought I was a compassionate doe eyed hippie!

No doubt that contributed to your marital failure(s).

They weren’t complete failures. I got some kids out of the deal. And I’m inculcating them with my world view just to make it tougher for your kids.

>> So you’ve fucked up three marriages yourself…
>> and you’re happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens
>> the right to marry their partners?

>No, I didn’t fuck them up by myself. I had a
>spouse to help me fuck it up.

Well sure, if it had happened only once, maybe even twice. But three times? Lol. There’s a common link in all three of those failed marriages, and that link is you.

>So haha, at least I had a spouse for a while.
>You’ll probably never have one.

there are a few issues here.

1. will ‘gay marriage’ be legal in australia in my lifetime? the answer to that is almost certainly.

2. would I choose marry my mate if marriage was available here for same-sex couples? no, probably not, for many different reasons.

Btw in this country, the rights + protections typically associated with marriage [in other countries] have been uncoupled from marriage itself. One does not gain significant additional legal protections or rights thru marrying (that cannot be had simply by living together as a couple). that’s not the case in the US, where gay + lesbian families actually do need to access marriage in order to protect themselves legally and financially.

>>You’re also happy to deny lesbian + gay citizens
>>any of the legal protections associated with
>>marriage — like the “right” to visit one’s
>>partner in hospital. And why?? You can’t
>>articlulate s single coherent or sensible reason.

>Yes I did.

No, you haven’t.

>Rules of the game is that touchdowns are on this
>side of the field.

For now, and only in certain states. (Same-sex marriage is, of course, fully legal in Massachucetts.) Fortunately for US queers, the ‘rules of the game’ are subject to federal Supreme Court review. It is my belief that the legislature have stepped outside the bounds of your constitution in refusing to make marriage available to same-sex couples; and it is only a matter of time before this is corrected.

>You wanna take the ball to the
>other side and want to know why the ref doesn’t
>raise his arms. Then you want to change the rules
>of the game. That’s sad.

That is not an argument, tt’s merely a statement of historical fact, i.e., historically marriage has been between one male and one or more women.** This historical fact is no argument as to why marriage should remain the way it is in 2004. If we only ever look to history when establishing the ‘rules of the game’ for our social institutions, we would still have slavery, and no married woman would be entitled to own property. Blacks and whites would be prevented from intermarriage.

**Actually, some the native American Indian tribes encouraged marriage between individuals of the same biological gender.

>> I think what it boils down to is that behind the
>> clown act, you are ‘just’ a very small,
>> mean-spirited person.

>Oh no! Not mean-spirited! I thought I was a
>compassionate doe eyed hippie!

I had thought you were ‘approximately’ a decent, OK guy, for some odd reason. You’re treatment of women is dishonorable bordering on despicable.

>>No doubt that contributed to your marital
>>failure(s).

>They weren’t complete failures. I got some kids
>out of the deal. And I’m inculcating them with my
>world view

Lol, are you raising your kids under Islam? I’d guess you are too much of a pussy to do anything your ex-wife doesn’t approve of re: the raising of your kids.

My guess is that the various media will have a far greater influence on your children’s views of sexual minorities than your own pathetic self. Media is on ‘our’ side, not yours. 🙂

>just to make it tougher for your kids.

That’s assuming your son isn’t gay, and/ or your daughter is not lesbian. If that isn’t the case, you’re making it tougher for your own kids. 🙂

>Oh wait. . . what kids?

Is this supposed to be, like, a cutting comment? Where I come from, we call people who have kids (and three marriages) before they are 30 “white trash”. (Or alternatively “bogans”).

Well sure, if it had happened only once, maybe even twice. But three times? Lol. There’s a common link in all three of those failed marriages, and that link is you.

I’ve already come to grips with the fact that I’m not part of a couple, so your criticism hardly is a revelation.

1. will ‘gay marriage’ be legal in australia in my lifetime? the answer to that is almost certainly.

We’ll just have to see what the kangaroo courts rule on that.

(Same-sex marriage is, of course, fully legal in Massachucetts.) Fortunately for US queers, the ‘rules of the game’ are subject to federal Supreme Court review. It is my belief that the legislature have stepped outside the bounds of your constitution in refusing to make marriage available to same-sex couples; and it is only a matter of time before this is corrected.

It is my belief that it is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law, not the create it.

That is not an argument, tt’s merely a statement of historical fact, i.e., historically marriage has been between one male and one or more women.** This historical fact is no argument as to why marriage should remain the way it is in 2004. If we only ever look to history when establishing the ‘rules of the game’ for our social institutions, we would still have slavery, and no married woman would be entitled to own property. Blacks and whites would be prevented from intermarriage.

Historically the prevention of interracial marriage is a relatively new thing. There were interracial marriages even during biblical times.

**Actually, some the native American Indian tribes encouraged marriage between individuals of the same biological gender.

And there are some African tribes that file down their teeth into razor sharp points. So that must be a good idea too.

I had thought you were ‘approximately’ a decent, OK guy, for some odd reason. You’re treatment of women is dishonorable bordering on despicable.

Ok, Daffy Duck.

Lol, are you raising your kids under Islam? I’d guess you are too much of a pussy to do anything your ex-wife doesn’t approve of re: the raising of your kids.

I capitulate to no one. I’m raising them with my worldview. I got one of them who can already beat you at pool.

My guess is that the various media will have a far greater influence on your children’s views of sexual minorities than your own pathetic self. Media is on ‘our’ side, not yours. 🙂

I’m not one of those who sit back and let the media or sports celebrities raise my child and then wonder why they’re all fucked up.

That’s assuming your son isn’t gay, and/ or your daughter is not lesbian. If that isn’t the case, you’re making it tougher for your own kids. 🙂

Maybe they’re Marxist. Just to be on the safe side I should stop dogging out Marxism too.

>> Well sure, if it had happened only once, maybe even
>> twice. But three times? Lol. There’s a common link
>> in all three of those failed marriages, and that
>> link is you.

> I’ve already come to grips with the fact that I’m
> not part of a couple, so your criticism hardly is a
> revelation.

I wonder though why you’re unable or unwilling to
acknowledge the quite likely primary role played by
you in the falling apart of your three (3) marriages.

Didn’t you recently recently post on the importance of
taking personal rsponsibility?

>> 1. will ‘gay marriage’ be legal in australia in my
>> lifetime? the answer to that is almost certainly.

> We’ll just have to see what the kangaroo courts rule
> on that.

I’d predict that the US will have full marriage
equality for same-sex couples before Australia.

>> (Same-sex marriage is, of course, fully legal in
>> Massachucetts.) Fortunately for US queers, the
>> ‘rules of the game’ are subject to federal Supreme
>> Court review. It is my belief that the legislature
>> have stepped outside the bounds of your
>> constitution in refusing to make marriage available
>> to same-sex couples; and it is only a matter of
>> time before this is corrected.

> It is my belief that it is the job of the judiciary
> to interpret the law, not the create it.

Exactly. Which is why it is so important that your
Supreme Court review current US marriage laws, to
ensure they are not violating the constitutional
rights of gay + lesbian CITIZENS (such as equality
before the law). In all cases where gay marriage has
ended up in state supreme courts in the US, the
finding has been that the ban on marriage for same-sex
couples was unconstitutional. (That’s Haiwaii,
Vermont, and Massachucetts). The same thing happened
in Canada. I’d say within 10 years (at the most)
marriage will be available to queers in all states in
the US, courtesy of your supreme court. 🙂

>> That is not an argument, tt’s merely a statement of
>> historical fact, i.e., historically marriage has
>> been between one male and one or more women.** This
>> historical fact is no argument as to why marriage
>> should remain the way it is in 2004. If we only
>> ever look to history when establishing the ‘rules
>> of the game’ for our social institutions, we would
>> still have slavery, and no married woman would be
>> entitled to own property. Blacks and whites would
>> be prevented from intermarriage.

> Historically the prevention of interracial marriage
> is a relatively new thing. There were interracial
> marriages even during biblical times.

And so? Historically the banning of married women from
owning property is a relatively new thing within
Western legal tradition. (1800s). What does this
prove, fuckwit? My point, dim-wit, is that looking to
the past — either the recent past, or the distant
past — is not the only or best way to decide on the
appropriateness of laws in the present times.

>> **Actually, some the native American Indian tribes
>> encouraged marriage between individuals of the same
>> biological gender.

> And there are some African tribes that file down
> their teeth into razor sharp points. So that must be
> a good idea too.

Christ you are stupid. Did I offer the fact that
native American Indian tribes practiced same-sex
marriage as an argument FOR legalisation of same-sex
marriage today? No, I didn’t — you fucking MORON. In
FACT, I put forward the OPPOSITE idea — that looking
to historical precedent is NOT the best way to decide
what is appropriate today, in 2004, with regards to
our social institutions and social structures. Do you
even understand what I am saying? The fact that
marriage was historically, in this culture at least,
between 1 man and 1++ woman/ women is an historical
fact. The fact that Indians practiced same-sex
marriage is an historical facts. Historical facts
explain why the current “rules of the game” (to
continue with your stupid, stupid sporting analogy)
are they way they are; they are not an argument as to
why the rules should stay the way they are.

>> I had thought you were ‘approximately’ a decent, OK
>> guy, for some odd reason. You’re treatment of women
>> is dishonorable bordering on despicable.

> Ok, Daffy Duck.

Ok, moron.

>> Lol, are you raising your kids under Islam? I’d
>> guess you are too much of a pussy to do anything
>> your ex-wife doesn’t approve of re: the raising of
>> your kids.

> I capitulate to no one.

It amazes me when people make these categorical, and
hence obviously untrue, statements. Why do they do it?
Because they are stupid?

> I’m raising them with my worldview.

And how old are they? They’re teenagers, their
father’s “worldview” is no more relevant than a piece
of shit.

> I got one of them who can already beat you at pool.

lol, not.

>> My guess is that the various media will have a far
>> greater influence on your children’s views of
>> sexual minorities than your own pathetic self.
>> Media is on ‘our’ side, not yours. 🙂

> I’m not one of those who sit back and let the media
> or sports celebrities raise my child and then wonder
> why they’re all fucked up.

This statement relates to my statement how??

As far as your children being more ‘gay friendly’ than
you are, you have little to no control over that now.
The fact that gays + lesbians are visible, in media,
at school, etc. means their generation will be more
gay friendly than your generation. Support for gay
marriage is a ‘middle of the road’ position among
those under 30. They think preventing gays from
marrying is no different from stopping blacks from
marrying, or stopping mixed race couples from
marrying, i.e., barbaric. Frankly, many of ‘us’ are
waiting for people like you to just die already and
make way for the next generation.

>> That’s assuming your son isn’t gay, and/ or your
>> daughter is not lesbian. If that isn’t the case,
>> you’re making it tougher for your own kids. 🙂

> Maybe they’re Marxist. Just to be on the safe side I
> should stop dogging out Marxism too.

Another stupid analogy from a really quite stupid
person. Actually, I’d be surprised if you “dog out”
homosexuality or homosexuals to your kids. You’re too
much of a coward to express your hatred directly &
hence it tends to come out in homophobic ‘jokes’.

Another stupid analogy from a really quite stupid
person. Actually, I’d be surprised if you “dog out”
homosexuality or homosexuals to your kids. You’re too
much of a coward to express your hatred directly &
hence it tends to come out in homophobic ‘jokes’.

Not all anti gay springs from phobia. I have no fear of homosexuality. It is funny as hell. Like shooting at the wrong hoop or plugging the wrong sockets. Why should that strike fear in me? It’s just silly.

I wonder though why you’re unable or unwilling to
acknowledge the quite likely primary role played by
you in the falling apart of your three (3) marriages.

I thought you were a “root causes” guy who would want to chalk it all up to housing density in Lansing or something. I guess it is okay for religious people to be responsible for things, as long as queers and leftists don’t have to be responsible for their choices.

I’d predict that the US will have full marriage
equality for same-sex couples before Australia.

I predict that death will catch you before you have more than a cursory understanding of American politics and American Common Law.

Exactly. Which is why it is so important that your
Supreme Court review current US marriage laws, to
ensure they are not violating the constitutional
rights of gay + lesbian CITIZENS (such as equality
before the law).

No. First, the SCOTUS has been petitioned to hear it, and they have refused. That means they don’t even see a prima facie case of inequality. That means that there isn’t even a scintilla of evidence. The simple fact is there is no constitutional right to marriage, much less same-sex marriage. It is a non-starter. The Texas Legal jargon would be “That dog won’t hunt.”

In all cases where gay marriage has
ended up in state supreme courts in the US, the
finding has been that the ban on marriage for same-sex
couples was unconstitutional. (That’s Hawaii,
Vermont, and Massachucetts).

Hawaii has a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the authority to deny SSM. A constitutional amendment can’t, by definition, be unconstitional. The Hawaii SC ruled that law constitutional, not unconstitional. The Vermont legislature has decided that SSM isn’t, and is unlikely to be successfully challenged. Massachusetts was a “flyer” decision that was far, far from the mainstream. It is currently running afoul of old anti-mycegination laws, and even if it does come about, it doesn’t mean jack-shit in the national scope, because the MA law specifically forbids MA SSM from being recognized in other states, most likely to keep it from being slapped down on a combination of the DOMA and full-faith-and-credit arguments in front of the SCOTUS. Also, there is an amendment going to the voters to ratify in November 2006 for MA, and it will most likely pass, which means that SSM won’t be in MA anymore after that, and the courts are likely to annul all marriages conducted. (Since it is the definition of the legal status changing, it isn’t an ex post facto law. They aren’t saying, “that marriage never took place”, they would be saying “that isn’t marriage”.)

I’d say within 10 years (at the most)
marriage will be available to queers in all states in
the US, courtesy of your supreme court. 🙂

I’d say you are out of your head from home-team-rahrah. MA specifically avoided giving the SCOTUS any chance of inputting on its law, because it knew that the SCOTUS would give them a Rick James caliber bitch-slap over the full-faith-and-credit clause and DOMA.

Historically the banning of married women from
owning property is a relatively new thing within
Western legal tradition. (1800s).

And how old are they? They’re teenagers, their
father’s “worldview” is no more relevant than a piece
of shit.

I think I see the problem here. We call this projection. Just because you have daddy issues (which would explain a whole plethora of behaviors) doesn’t mean that everyone does. I greatly value my father’s opinions and wisdom, and I would expect that to be a very common thing.

You’re too
much of a coward to express your hatred directly &
hence it tends to come out in homophobic ‘jokes’.

More projection. Sometimes a joke is simply a joke. I don’t hate people with hairlips, but that doesn’t hinder me in the least from making jokes and doing the voice. I don’t hate fat people, but I’ll make fat jokes all day long. I don’t hate black pe–

And how old are they? They’re teenagers, their
father’s “worldview” is no more relevant than a piece of shit.

Parents are the first and the most significant influence on a child’s world view. As adults we do not always hold the same views as our parents, but who among us can say they were not an influence? My worldview is very relevent on my children and my influence is undeniable. I’m kind of like God in a way.